Group+4's+page

=Anyone have John Foley's phone number? = Literature functions as a time capsule: it offers a glimpse into a specific time and place that lives on forever between the pages. As teachers, we need literature to open up students to the world beyond the classroom. Not every story has a happy ending and it’s imperative that we pass this onto our students. Any time a teacher wants to sanitize classroom content, my hands flail in frustration and desperation.

The stories of Huck, Scout and George and Lenny speak for a generation. The authenticity contributed to the books’ status as American classics. The stories that endure allow us examine society. These stories transport contemporary readers to a different time. We see the inequality the Jims and the Lennys suffer and realize we — as a society — can do better. Good literature exposes societal flaws and encourages readers to be better.

I’ve confessed my predilection for dead (and living) white writers on previous posts. So perhaps I’m overreacting to the idea of removing //Huck Finn// from the classroom. A part of my thinks it’s sacrilegious. American classics like //Huck Finn// and //To Kill A Mockingbird// remain in the curriculum because of their skillful portrayals of eras that have long since passed. These works "contain civilized values in direct opposition to racism that makes them deserving of being read and taught as the classics they are" (Murphy 2009). To idealize that period as more peaceful or idealistic is wrong. We’re not helping our students by presenting sanitized and inaccurate stories.

Words are never thrown about in a willy-nilly fashion when it comes to literature, the good kind that makes you wish you could call up the author and talk to him about the book. The language authors use is deliberate; readers and teachers need to respect and understand that. When the n-word appears in //Huck Finn//, it serves a purpose and its’ our responsibility — as readers and teachers — to understand it.

I’ll concede to Foley on one point: "The time has arrived to update the literature we use in high school classrooms” (Murphy 2009). It is time to bring in new voices, ones that better reflect the students. But not at Huck’s expense. — Jen

=Nope, but it's a good thing I don't have his number ... = This article made me steaming mad. This man has no respect for literature. Literature is a reflection of society, of a period in history and the people of that time. Yes, that means that within the pages of books, in black ink, there may or may not include the stereotypes and prejudices that define certain peoples.

Foley’s argument is that since there is an African American president now, we should remove every single book that portrays blacks unfavorably. Where in the world does that make sense? He says, “However, with an African American about to be inaugurated as president, Foley wonders if Huck Finn ought to be sent back down the river. Why not replace it with a more modern, less discomfiting, novel documenting the epic journey of discovery?” (Murphy 2009). How bout this? Why don’t you read Huck Finn, discuss the way blacks are portrayed and then read Obama’s autobiography and celebrate the journey of an African American man? Show the effects of racism, of intolerance. That’s the function of literature. Mark Twain wrote Huck Finn in 1884. Things were slightly different back then. Does Foley suggest we rewrite history text books as well? Completely wipe slavery, gender inequality, etc. from the nation’s history?

By Foley’s inane reasoning, when we one day elect a woman president, we should lose every book that portrays women as unequal to men. Well if we are to chuck the American classics that show unequal gender roles then so long //Scarlet Letter//, and we’ll miss you //The Great Gatsby//. Appreciate the journey, the progress. No one is invisible to prejudice and stereotyping—it’s dangerous territory to remove books from the classroom because. it might offend someone. Where do we draw the line then? If we removed very book from the classroom that offends or stereotypes then we’ll be left with //Curious George.//

I was also infuriated with the last sentence, “You have to remember, it’s hard to sell kids these days on books. I write young adult novels and sometimes I wonder, why bother? You’re writing for three girls who like to read” (Murphy 2009). Um, has he heard of a little book called //Twilight//? Or //Harry Potter//? — Kristen

=**At the cost of historical context ...**= What Mr. Foley also ignores is that in addition to being literary classics by virtue of their technical skill (reason enough to maintain them in any school curriculum), the social context of novels such "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" and "To Kill A Mockingbird" serve an even greater function- to remind of us of how far along the we have come as a society.

Foley argues that since we as a nation have elected a black president it is time to retire these works; but wouldn't doing so deprive students of the full meaning of such an historical moment? To remove recent events from their historical context, with all it's blemishes intact, is to trivialize the accomplishment.

I also agree that classrooms are in need of a literary update to include some much needed perspective, however, I don't think it should come at the cost of losing great works for the sole purpose of shying away from the less attractive parts of our history. — Bryan

= = =As long as they're reading= Kristen, thanks for raising a point that’s not tied to language, prejudice and society, but one I’m going to attempt to tackle (if briefly).

Young adult literature is certainly alive and well, as highlighted by a recent article on Alloy Entertainment — the publisher that gave the world the Gossip Girl books, in The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_mead (access to the full article requires a subscription). Elise Howard, associate publisher for fiction in the children’s division of HarperCollins said of Alloy: “Editors and publishers can get hung up on what’s good for kids. ... At Alloy, they always think first about what kids want to read” (Mead 2009).

The same could be said of teachers. We want our students to read. Does it matter if they identify with Harry Potter and not Holden Caulfield? Harry Potter probably does have a place in the classroom, but I won't push Huck and Jim to the sidelines for the Hogwarts gang. Does what they’re reading really matter, so long as they’re reading something? And can that something be written in textspeak?

Just a thought ... — Jen

=Comments: If you had Foley's number, what would you want to say to him? =
 * I feel like it should be up to the teacher to decide whether or not the content of a book is appropriate for his or her __specific__ class. To decide whether or not his or her students will be uncomfortable with the material, if they are mature enugh to handle the issues raised in a text, etc. I also feel that a teacher should raise the controversial issues of a text before starting to read it. If the class decides that they are not comfortable discussing it, choose a different book. Will they be missing out? Yes. But if you decide that you are going to get rid of or ban all books that talk about prejudice, inequality, and racism such as //To Kill a Mockingbird//, //Of Mice and Men//, and //The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,// you are going to have nothing left to read. --Tara
 * There certainly is something to be said for knowing you students. But is deciding they aren’t ready for a piece of literature, censorship. Does context matter when someone prohibits you from doing something? — Jen
 * I think knowing your students is important, but I think letting them know that you trust them enough to be mature about certain books is equally, if not more important. As English teachers, we need to make it our mission (or continue the mission) to use literature, to understand what we're giving our students to read, and to attempt to educate those like Foley. If anything, maybe he should give up writing, especially if only three girls are reading his books! -Lauren
 * We can't ignore great literature because the story we are reading takes place in a historical time that we as Americans are not particularly proud of. It is more beneficial for students to become exposed to these words inside the classroom than outside the classroom. As long as the teacher effectively introduces the lesson the students should be resilliantenough to accept our past. -Angela Camera

=wats the big deal w texting??! = Wasssuppp? Dis artcle wuz intersting-i kno that i like 2 send texts and sumtimes shorten da words bc, hey, its texting. shud tchers be understndin of text lang creepin in to their kids essays????? in dis artcle, tcher michelle peterson says dat she sees "textspeak" more in paperssssss. u cnt argue dat there rnt consequences 4 textspeak---u cant rite like dat on da regents or state tests. i dnt care if dats wat my kids r used 2, they need 2 kno the difference bw tlkin to their pals and writin 4 school. i feel dat its pure lazyness...dey shud kno the time n plce for dis kinda speak. i kno dat their future bosses wnt like it 1 bit.

Additional Reading:
[[[] []

=Textspeak in da classroom?= OMG! whats the bfd over texting? all my friends can understand what i’m saying. and who wants to spell out words all the time???? def not me! lol. it’s not like i always speak like this, u kno?

I usually use a more formal, professional sounding voice, though I can code-switch with the best of them. I do watch "Gossip Girl.". Maybe I’m too much of an English/grammar nerd, but I like to use a more proper form of English as often as possible. Call me a stickler, but it’s the truth.

Texting is here to stay. Mobile phones are ubiquitous and a necessity. The language we use when we text has always existed: it’s not as though someone started using U in place of you in 1998 and it caught on overnight. Michelle Peterson, a high school English teacher in Nevada makes the same point: “I don’t think it’s new ... Even when I was in school, I think kids tended to write in the vernacular” (Przybys 2008).

But does texting have a place in the classroom? It seems like the only person not texting these days is my grandmother (she doesn’t have call waiting), so it’s worth consideration. Academics don’t have an answer on this one yet (Przybys 2008). Using different types of language should be encouraged in more creative assignments, but textspeak shouldn’t be used in any type of formal situation. Professor John Frow of the University of Melbourne makes a good point, if I think he’s a bit too welcoming of textspeak in his classroom: “If we were simply teaching students how to do text messaging, then it would be a waste of time ... But if we’re teaching them about the range of different languages that exist in English, and about translating from one language across to another, if we’re teaching them both that kind of skill, but also to think critically about these processes of moving between languages, then that seems to me entirely appropriate” (Carvin 2006).

Students to seem have no problem mastering textspeak. It’s Standard English that gives them problems. — Jen

=**Some thoughts on the technology of texting and politics**= Text messaging in the current state of our unique American culture is seen, perhaps rightly, as a kind of 'dumbing down' of our more intricate language system. Separated from this though, and placed in a different political climate- could text messaging have a function beyond the simple 'wat up'?

It strikes me as significant that in several current world conflicts text messages, 'tweets' and other condensed forms of communication have become a kind of running commentary on a developing situation or crisis. The technology presents a possibility to be so immediate that the only way to censor the content would be to remove the medium. The previously disadvantaged have found a way to communicate with the outside world without their message filtered through the distortions of their government's perspective.

If the goal and ultimate purpose of any language system is to communicate and exchange information necessary to navigate the world we find ourselves participating in (and to act upon it, to engage with it) - maybe text messaging has a purpose and is its own skill. In our everyday lives, for the moment, it just may be something we (thankfully) don't require.

But, in a world where things develop and change ever more rapidly- I'm finding some value in a secondary language system that can use symbols and abbreviations to talk across huge spaces at breakneck speed. We talk a lot about students (and everyone really) developing a "tool box" of language uses- is it really so bad to have one more tool? Perhaps texting is more of a nail gun than a precision hammer, but we need those too.

Additional Reading:
[] []

**Comments: wat do u think?** = = = =
 * Text messaging is here to stay and as teachers we must be prepared to address evidence of its existence in our student's work. In the same way that it is encouraged that we use contrastive analysis to teach students the difference between informal and formal language. We should have our students know how to code switch their writing. They must have the competence to switch between the two writing codes. — Edolla


 * Textspeak does not currently have a place in the classroom because cellphones do not have a place in the classroom. However, inevitably, our culture is technologically advancing at a very rapid pace, so the classoom is bound to evolve (eventually) into a more text-friendly environment. As we become more technologically dependent members of society, will cellphones become part of our IT or computer courses? Are standardized texting and technology proficiency exams realities in the near or distant future? Will we need to modify curricula for LTP or “Limited Technology Proficient” students? While SE writing remains the focus of our classrooms, it is our goal as teachers to prepare our students to become fully-functioning members of society. I agree with Edolla that technology is here to stay, so there is no choice but to embrace it. -Kate

("In general single vowels are not consistent and teaching them is likely wasted effort"). Text speak seems to be similar in its patterns- if we can read it, why waste the effort including unnecessary vowels, punctuation, and letters? However, the notion of context clues and the unnecessary inclusion of vowels has been around for a long time (look at Hebrew, for example). And yet, in (standard) English we don't read and write like the author of the above sentence and therefore, in my opinion, should not change how we write and teach English because it's easier on our fingers.- Shana
 * With sublexical awareness as experienced readers, we actually don't need vowels to figure out what something says. Take, for example, the following sentence:
 * n g*n*r*l s*ngl* v*w*ls *r* n*t c*ns*st*nt *nd t**ch*ng th*m *s l*k*ly w*st*d *ff*rt.**

=A response to 'Language Myth #17'= [].
 * Professors in South Carolina seem to have great response to the regional dialect prejudices discussed in the article 'Language Myth #17'-

If only everyone could be as aware and open minded as the professors in this article. How refreshing, and surprising, to hear someone refer to the differences in dialects as "beautiful", as "an art form". If only we could develop lesson plans for every area of the country and their regional dialects. It's important to remember that language prejudices are often as arbitrary as distances, pronunciation, even pace- despite the common language.

And maybe if we had programs like this throughout the country we couldn't read this same article translated into a stereotyped "Redneck" version by a website called the Dialectizer:** = = [].

=What are the origins Of language prejudice?=
 * There sadly can be little debate about the reality of prejudice and it's manifestations in language and dialect discrimination. But where exactly does it come from? Is it something we learn, something developed?

One group of researchers think it might be something we're born with- [].

One hopes that even if this is the case- like any other number of human's most base biological traits, education can overcome this kind of profiling.**

=**Ali G and language** Prejudice**= Does anyone do a better job of challenging stereotypes than Ali G? He’s an Orthodox Jew from Britain whose schtick is satirizing just about everything while looking and sounding like a hip-hopper. Check out this clip from when he interviewed Noam Chomsky: []. Chomsky appears indifferent to Ali G’s language. Chomsky remains patient as he explains the differences between monolingual, bilingual and bisexual. If he has any language-based prejudices, they’re well hidden.

Of course, this interview is not nearly as entertaining as when Ali G sat down with Andy Rooney: []. Now that’s funny. Rooney is impatient and cantankerous — as usual. His irritability in this interview seems rooted in Ali G’s language: almost immediately Rooney asks if English is Ali G’s native language. Ali G doesn’t talk or sound “right” to Rooney, which makes him unworthy of Rooney’s time. — Jen

= Comments: What's you favorite Ali G interview? =

= = =Guess who’s coming to dinner?= A little help: I can’t decide on a menu for the imaginary dinner party I’m hosting. James Baldwin and the University of Melbourne’s Professor John Frow over. What side dish compliments language?

Language is a loaded, complicated idea for Baldwin. It’s filled with social and political implications. What would he think of textspeak? Is it a legitimate language? Would he see it through the same prism? Or perhaps, Baldwin would dismiss this language as a superficial form of language?

Does textspeak meet all the criteria Baldwin lays out in “If Black English Isn’t a Language, then Tell Me What It Is?” I don’t think it does. Did it evolve into a language so people could “describe and thus control their circumstances” (Baldwin, 1979, 1)? Does it really tell us anything about the speakers, other than they have a text messaging plan for their mobile phone (Baldwin, 1979). Is textspeak a political tool (Baldwin, 1979)? Did it “come into existence by means of brutal necessity” (Baldwin, 1979, 2)?

I answered no to all those questions and I have a hunch Baldwin would too. I would imagine that teachers like Frow, with their open embrace of textspeak would be a source of frustration. Sure, Frow is a proponent of teaching the range of languages, but I have a sneaking suspicion his acceptance toward language doesn’t include Ebonics.

There are some types of languages and it would be challenging to address them all in the classroom. How do you decide which take precedent over others? What’s more legitimate: textspeak or Black English? Frow and Baldwin would probably spend hours on that question alone. Which raises another question: what do you do when your dinner guests won’t leave? — Jen